Comments on: Kate Walsh: Abstinence-Only "Not Working"

Cites One-In-Four Teen Girl STDs Rate In U.S. As Proof Fed-Sponsored Sex Ed Needs Broadening

[element51]

Some of you have made remarks about Kate Walsh and Planned Parenthood being a bad thing. I think one even went so far as to claim that Planned Parenthood was just set up to promote abortion. Not true. While it is true that abortions are done that is not the sole purpose of Planned Parenthood. There are many women who cannot afford to go to a clinic and get pap smears and mammograms and other tests that are provided by Planned Parenthood. And many cannot afford birth control pills or other contraceptives that are provided. Not to mention education about their own bodies. Some of you make it sound as though every woman who goes to a PP clinic is advised and pushed into getting an abortion. Again, not true. Many chose to have their babies and the only place they can get medical care is at a PP clinic. Being opposed to abortion is good...no one in their right mind wants abortions but clinics or not it will happen. Don''t be so quick to condemn until you know the facts. To make abortion illegal again is not going to stop them. Education is the key to reducing the need for them. Let''s not go back 50 years when women were bleeding to death in back alleys.

[jon2012-2009]

I guess they got the STD''''s through abstinence. We better teach them to fool around, to prevent more STD''''s. Glad we are getting advice from a real TV doctor, gosh she must be pretty smart.
Posted by SharnCedar at 01:18 PM : Mar 28, 20

Try to find data to show that these abstinence-only programs do reduce incidence of STDs. If we are talking about results, that''s the only thing that matters--evidence. $1.5 billion is quite a sum. Maybe you want to say it''s buying a lot of good morality, whatever that means. Well then, where''s your data?

[element51]

It is quite clear from some of the posts here that some of you just don''t get it. While I agree that it is the parents responsibility to teach their kids about s*x the unfortunate truth is that very few do. It amazes me that people are so afraid of talking openly about s*x that they would oppose teaching about it in schools. And the arguement that at 14 to 17 they are still "children" is way off base. Todays kids know about s*x at an early age and although they know about the act they do not realize the responsibility that comes with it. It is the religious right that opposes this type of education and then screams the loudest because kids are doing it anyway. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and until we have the courage to face up to the situation and start teaching the kids the truth this problem will not go away. Don''t you think it''s almost embarrassing that we have censor the word s*x just to talk about the problem?

[vadersdad-2009]

Teaching kids about *** and condoms does not make kids have ***. Kids are going to have *** and they need to know condoms are 99% effective in preventing pregnancy and the transmittal of STDs. Anyone who believes 14 and 15 year old kids are not thinking about *** is not thinking rationally. Wake up America and teach your kids so the government doesn''t have to!

[horton242]

The large sums of money spent on abstinence-only education are outrageous. I just wanted to clarify that we have actually spent $1.5 BILLION, not million on ineffective abstinence-only programs. These programs just don''t keep our kids safe.

[horton242]

The large sums of money spent on abstinence-only education are outrageous. I just wanted to clarify that we have actually spent $1.5 BILLION, not million on ineffective abstinence-only programs. These programs just don''t keep our kids safe.

[horton242]

The large sums of money spent on abstinence-only education are outrageous. I just wanted to clarify that we have actually spent $1.5 BILLION, not million on ineffective abstinence-only programs. These programs just don''t keep our kids safe.

[sharncedar]

I guess they got the STD''s through abstinence. We better teach them to fool around, to prevent more STD''s. Glad we are getting advice from a real TV doctor, gosh she must be pretty smart.

[sharncedar]

She ppay a doctor on TV - gosh we better listen to her

[csebbie]

cin103159 has hit the nail on the head! These children are not emotionally equipped to handle being active sexually. I remember when I was a teenager I wanted to so badly, but I''m glad I didn''t. I was not prepared to handle the emotional and spiritual ups and downs that comes with an active sexual lifestyle while you''re a child.
Parents need to teach that *** should only be for marriage. If parents teach right from wrong in the beginning, teen pregnancy and STD''s will go down drastically. THere will ovbiously still be children who do not listen, or don''t care, but the problem is we have 1 in 4 girls between 14 and 19 with STDs. If that statistic is true, that means many more are sexually active. This is NOT GOOD NEWS!

[cin103159]

Just because girls'' bodies become sexually mature at around age 12 does not mean they are emotionally and physically ready for a sexual relationship.

Condoms DO fail; nothing is 100% except abstinence. THAT is what is being taught.

Notice Ms. Walsh does not address the issue of unwanted pregnancies how young women are suffering from its disastrous results. Could it be because she is representing the world''s largest abortion proponent?

[csebbie]

It''s horrible that the world has come to the point where celebrities are pushing *** education on us. It is not the government''s job to teach people about ***. Health class can be used to teach about STD''s and the like, but the act of *** and what it''s for should be taught by the parents.

Granted, not all parents today are teaching their children right from wrong either, and that''s where the problem lies. The issue isn''t that abstinence only education isn''t working, it''s that children are not being taught right from wrong in the home, or in school. They''re taught to just do what feels good and learn from their mistakes. THAT''S how STD''s are getting spread, not because of a "failed" government program that was set up to fail from it''s inception.

I also am offended that Walsh referrs to girls aged 14 to 19 as "women." 18 and 19-year-olds are barely women, but 14 to 17 are surely not. They''re children. Why should the government be teaching CHILDREN about ***? Unreal!

Asking a person not to try out for sports cannot be compared to ***. It''s apples and oranges! Sports are games, *** certainly is not. The only thing I can assume is that Walsh, and other people from "Planned Parenthood" some mind their own children having *** at age 14 and have no problem with the emptiness that these children are left with when that purity is robbed from them by mis-education that says it''s okay to act on your sexual urges.

[cin103159]

Where are these "abstinence-only" programs? In California health education is presented both in middle school and high school. Also condoms are available in some school nurse%u2019s offices and other methods are free at PP. I volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center where we see young girls who have multiple pregnancy tests, pregnancies and abortions in addition to STI%u2019s. When asked about health education they say there was a class but either they didn%u2019t pay attention, don''t remember, were too embarrassed to ask their partner to use protection or seek it themselves, or just think they are immune.
Agreed abstinence-only is not enough; however, telling kids not to have *** is like telling them not to play sports or continue learning is ludicrous; neither has such potentially dangerous results (infection, pregnancy, infertility, cancer, death). We should be teaching them a physical relationship is wonderful at the appropriate level of maturity and course in a relationship. Teens don''t become active to fulfill physical needs but emotional needs; they have *** to feel loved, actually producing the opposite effect. Since they are not mature enough for a lasting committed relationship, after the crush ends the teen feels even worse, needing even more love and acceptance and the cycle continues. Information and protection also need to be readily available, but I believe it isn%u2019t so much that it isn%u2019t being presented but HOW it is being presented and by whom.

[taddles-2009]

"They tell me that as part of their "education" they are being taught that "condoms don''''t work."

Posted by mimisview at 12:32 PM : Mar 28, 2008"


That''s not abstinence only, that''s called propaganda. You wonder why your kids end up pregnant with STD''s the schools are teaching them lies.

[taddles-2009]

"1.5 million, really? How much money does it really take to tell kids not to have ***?

Posted by azcagirl at 11:55 AM : Mar 28, 2008"


For a nation wide program that is so little money as to be laughable.

[taddles-2009]

"in addition to the important concerns already posted, it is notable that Kate Walsh equated having ***, presumably in the age bracket of 14-19, with "grow"ing, "learn"ing, and "sports." An endorsement of *** like that certainly complicates the very problem.

Posted by grammata at 12:12 PM : Mar 28, 2008"


At what age do girls become sexually mature? I believe it''s 12. Taking the "head in the sand" approach to sexuality is simply ignorant and foolish. If you want to reduce teen pregnancy, if you want to reduce teen STD''s, then you must inform and educate. Trying to stop teens from experimenting with *** is a fools errand as has been amply demonstrated by the failed "abstinence only" programs advocated by the Bush administration.

[mimisview]

My two teenage daughters are getting abstinence only education in HS in AZ. They tell me that as part of their "education" they are being taught that "condoms don''t work." I think this fact explains the high rate of STDs - when the abstinence fails, these kids don''t think it''s worth bothering with condoms. What a national disgrace!

[johnstossel]

I couldn''t practice abstinence if I had Kate Walsh!!!

[grammata-2009]

in addition to the important concerns already posted, it is notable that Kate Walsh equated having ***, presumably in the age bracket of 14-19, with "grow"ing, "learn"ing, and "sports." An endorsement of *** like that certainly complicates the very problem.

[Marie Zarankevich]

Anyone who still thinks that telling your kids not to have *** will prevent them from getting HIV should go slap their father for not having had the wits to use a condom. Think of it as a retroactive self-abortion. Honestly, get real people. Remember when you were that age? Urges can be far stronger than ANY teaching can counter. Think R-E-A-L-I-T-Y.